I know my State has increased the salaries of its house and senate approximately 600 percent in the last few years. Senator DIRKSEN. We have, too. The CHAIRMAN. I think you will find a great many States are doing the same thing and so should the Federal Government. Senator CARLSON. I would like to state our appreciation for the distinguished minority leader speaking on behalf of Federal Government and official people in all branches of the Government. His statement this morning will be very helpful, in my opinion, in getting approved legislation. We should soon report from this committee. I know of no one who has had more experience with regard to pay for Members of Congress and Federal Government people, than the distinguished minority leader, Senator Dirksen. If I recall correctly, in 1933 his salary was $8,500. I agree with him there should be some increase and I wish to thank him for his appearance. Senator FONG. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Yes, Senator Fong. Senator FONG. I want to say I also appreciate the Senate minority leader coming here this morning and giving us such a forceful statement this morning. Senator BOGGS. Mr. Chairman ? The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir, Senator Boggs. Senator BOGGS. I want to join my colleagues in thanking the distinguished minority leader, Senator Dirksen, for appearing here this morning. I know his testimony and his views are very valuable to all of us, and it will be very helpful in arriving at a committee solution and reporting the bill out. I really can't think of anyone who has any more insight or understanding of the Federal Government than Senator Dirksen, his long experience and serving on many committees in the House and Senate, his great depth of understanding and appreciation of the problems with which our country is confronted and in detail many of our agencies in Government are confronted, gives his testimony not only great logic, but certainly great value, and I, too, want to thank him, sir. Senator DIRKSEN. I thank my friend from Delaware. I have only one other observation. I sincerely hope this job will be done in committee because it would not be a happy experience to have to offer an amendment on the floor of the Senate in order to increase the congressional salary. I would feel almost impelled to do it if it came to that, but I hope you will think very honestly and fervently about the observations I made this morning so you can present a bill that can be defended on a broad front and move without difficulty out of the Senate and finally to conference and then to the statute books. The CHAIRMAN. I do want to thank you for coming here. You volunteered to come of your own free will. I would also like to say that Senator Kuchel, the minority whip, in my presence said he would have appeared but you volunteered. Also we found that the majority leader and majority whip are of the same opinion, and they said they would help carry the burden on the floor. You recall, Senator Dirksen, that we were all together at the conversation. Senator DIRKSEN. I shall be happy to help carry the burden. The CHAIRMAN. I have asked the Bureau of the Budget to supply me with the salaries of the heads of the different departments through the years. I now have that information. I also have a chart which depicts the salaries of the Members of Congress. The charts will appear in the record at this point. The charts are as follows:) 1874 4 10,000 8,000 8,000 1899 10,000 10,000 10,000 1903. 1907. 12,000 1913. 1925 5 1947. 1949. 1953. 1956 $8,000 $8,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 $15,000 22,500 22,500 22,500 22,500 22,500| 22, 500| 22, 500| 22, 500 22,500 $22,500 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 $12,000 1 The Office of Attorney General was created in the President's Cabinet in 1789 but did not become the head of a department until 1870 when the Department of Justice was established. 2 The Postmaster General became a member of the President's Cabinet in 1829. The Post Office Department became an executive department in 1872. 3 The Departments of War and Navy, the Secretaries of which were members of the President's Cabinet until 1947, are now military departments under the Department of Defense. As Cabinet officers the salary rate for each Secretary was approximately the same as for Secretary of State. In 1873 Congress increased the pay of top legislative, judicial, and executive officials (act of Mar. 3, 1873, 17 Stat. 486). The new rates, however, were repealed the next year, except for the President and Justices of the Supreme Court (act of Jan. 20, 1874, 18 Stat. (pt. 3) 4). 5 Economy legislation effective in 1932-35 reduced rates 15, 10, and 5 percent successively during that period. Full salary was restored Apr. 1, 1935. 1 $6, $7, or $8 a day during attendance (except $1,500 a year in 1816–17). 2 $6,000 for each Congress ($3,000 a year). 3 In 1873 Congress increased the pay of top legislative, judicial, and executive officials (act of Mar. 3, 1873, 17 Stat. 486). The new rates, however, were repealed the next year, except for the President and Justices of the Supreme Court (act of Jan. 20, 1874, 18 Stat. (pt. 3), 4). Economy legislation in the period 1932-35 reduced the compensation of Members of Congress 15, 10, and 5 percent successively during that period. Full compensation was restored Apr. 1, 1935. 5 Total compensation. Includes a $2,500 expense allowance, which was tax free until 1953 when it was made taxable under the provisions of the Revenue Act of Oct. 20, 1951. This allowance was discontinued, effective Mar. 1, 1955, by the same legislation which increased the salary rate for Members of Congress to $22,500 (Public Law 9. 8th Cong., approved Mar. 2, 1955). For income tax purposes, Members of Congress may deduct up to $3,000 a year for living expenses (26 U.S.C. 162 (a)). The CHAIRMAN. Since we only have 2 minutes, I don't think we will have time to go into another statement. We will resume on Friday. We will meet Friday morning at 9. (Whereupon, the committee recessed, to reconvene at 9 a.m., Friday, May 22.) FEDERAL PAY LEGISLATION FRIDAY, MAY 22, 1964 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE, The committee met at 9:30 a.m., pursuant to call in room 6202, New Senate Office Building, Senator Olin D. Johnston (chairman of the committee) presiding. Also present: William P. Gulledge, staff director and counsel, and Frank A. Paschal, minority clerk. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. We are continuing today the committee's hearings on Federal pay adjustment legislation. These hearings will conclude at the end of our next hearing, which is scheduled for Monday, May 25, 1964, at 10 a.m. Our first witness this morning is Mr. Daniel Jaspan, legislative representative of the National Association of Postal Supervisors. Please proceed, Mr. Jaspan. STATEMENT OF DANIEL JASPAN, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF POSTAL SUPERVISORS Mr. JASPAN. My name is Daniel Jaspan. I am the legislative representative of the National Association of Postal Supervisors, composed of more than 26,000 postal supervisors in all States of the Union, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Included in our membership are supervisors in the motor vehicle and maintenance services. I am accompanied by our national president, Fred J. O'Dwyer, and our national secretary, Donald N. Ledbetter. We sincerly appreciate the interest of this committee in taking the time from their busy schedule and long sessions to hear our views on the salary situation. Our association endorses H.R. 11049 in general, but we find that there are certain inequities which should be brought to your attention with the hope that corrections will be made before final action. We were very happy when the principle of comparability was established by the enactment of Public Law 87-793, effective October 13, 1962. Our association had been seeking that principle for many years since our studies had shown that postal supervisors' salaries had always lagged far behind salaries in industry. Unfortunately, even with the forward strides made by the enactment of Public Law 87-793 and proposed in the salary schedule of H.R. 11049, postal supervisors will still have a serious salary lag. For many years, salary increases had been based on flat dollar increases, which had steadily decreased the percentage differences be 32-884-64--15 tween the various salary levels. Public Law 84-68, enacted in 1955, was the first real attempt at a complete salary reclassification. Supervisory salaries were not made comparable with salaries in industry at that time, however, as it would have meant a very substantial increase in each supervisory salary level to attain true comparability. Salary increases since 1955, based on percentage increases, have restored at least a semblance of salary differential between the supervisor and those he supervises. H.R. 11049 would now increase the dollar differential in the lower salary levels and decrease it in the supervisory levels. The latest trend in this direction came with the enactment of Public Law 87-793. The following examples will highlight the story: Salary differentials between the top steps of the various levels Although we do not desire to downgrade or degrade any position, we are certain that the distinguished members of this committee will agree that, if the salary differential between a janitor and an elevator operator has been increased from $285 to $435, and if the differential between a clerk or carrier and a mail handler is $495, the salary differential between the first-line supervisor and those supervised by him should be at least $600-and certainly more than only $365. The firstline supervisory level definitely needs an upward adjustment, as do other management levels. Another glaring inequity in the present salary schedule, and proposed in H.R. 11049, is the provision granting six annual step increases to employees in the first six levels, but only three to postal supervisors, postmasters, regional employees, postal inspectors, and others in levels 7 and higher. Employees in the latter groups must spend 2 years in steps 4, 5, and 6 before advancing to the next step. Before enactment of Public Law 87-793, the House committee voted overwhelmingly to extend 1-year step increases to all levels. The Senate committee discussed doing the same, but because of opposition by the Post Office Department at that time, an amendment was defeated by a narrow margin. Although the original bill (H.R. 8986) approved by |